On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, Doug Schepers wrote:
>
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> >
> > There's no point us arguing over names, we'd only end up with a spec
> > full of compromises and smelling of design-by-committee.
>
> This statement sounds like compromise and considering multiple
> viewpoints are bad things. I strongly disagree. An optimal design is
> not necessarily the product of a single opinion.
I'm not arguing that we should have a single opinion or that we should not
consider multiple viewpoint.
I'm arguing that now that all the viewpoints have been put forward, we
should let the spec editor take into account all the opinions, and come up
with the optimal solution based on our opinions and viewpoints.
I do not believe that cat fighting in a mailing list will come up with as
good a compromise as having a single person responsible for finding a
solution. In my experience with cat fighting on mailing lists, what you'll
end up having is whoever gave up last wins. This is more a test of who has
the most free time, not a test of who has the strongest case.
At the end of the day, the editor has to be responsible for his spec. His
is the name that will be associated with the spec, and he needs to be able
to "own" the decisions that are made for it.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'